"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Orthodox audio science basically works. High end audio
pseudo-science doesn't.

Sure it does. It makes a *LOT* more money per unit for
the manufacturer/marketeer than the "value for money"
stuff. It creates employment for some, and adds to the
economic statistics.

OK ;-)

Pardon me for speaking about technical merits and
performance.

Which many people are not interested in obviously.


There is nothing wrong with giving people what they
want, especially when they seem to be more than happy
with their purchases, regardless of technical merit.

Right, but there is something wrong with promising
something and providing nothing.

Sure they do. And as I said, many people are not only
happy with their purchase, they are ardent evangelists.

I guess that maturity in the understanding of how audio works in the 21st
century includes understanding that getting an amp that makes you happy
should not and often is not an unusual occasion.

You can't do much better than that in this consumer world
we live in.

In a way, magazines like Stereophile try to make people believe that
getting an amp that makes you happy should be and is an unusual occasion.

As they tell it, there's some kind of cosmic conflict
between
the two, when in fact they are complementary.

Sure, what the two camps seem to forget is that each
individuals auditory system, listening environment, and
personal preferences are different. Obviously laboratory
measurements are only half the story.

Only insofar as equipment can be good enough that no
known or possible human can hear the difference.
Measurement technology exceeds that limit.

Sure, but that does not take into account personal
auditory performance or personal preference.

When the audible differences are less than what *anybody* can hear, then
there is no logical reason for preference based on sound quality.

Obviously
more important to many than technical perfection.

There is no such thing as manifest technical perfection.

Even the two channels of a stereo amp measure differently in ways that is
statistically significant.

Audio stores don't bill themselves as purveyers of a
state of mind. They represent themselves as purveyers of
audio equipment.

Which they do in whatever way they think will make the
most money.

Welcome to capitalism, ;-)

That is what a capitalist society is all
about, surely you realise that?

Yup.

But, just because its capitalism doesn't make it good or right. If
capitalism was perfect, there would be no reason to have trade laws.

wrote in message
oups.com

This from a guy who accused the editor of Stereophile,
reputed widely to be a super nice guy,

Unlike you Ladbury, I've actually met the man.

Trust me, it was one of the more disappointing non-occasions of my life.

'nuff said.

wrote in message
ups.com
mc a écrit :

wrote in message
ups.com...

You wouldn't know a logical debate if it bit you in the
ass, you stupid drunk limey piece of ****.

Is that supposed to be a specimen of logical debate?

Shut up, Jr. Needless to say, there's no such thing as a
"logical debate" with you ****ing morons. It's always
nothing more than a ****ing contest.

Says Ladbury while he ****es all over Usenet. :-(

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:MocJf.78293$_D1.10943@trnddc03

In my research I see the terms ABX and DBT used
interchangeably, often written out as "ABX/DBT".

Anybody who equates ABX and DBT must be either speaking at a very high level
or is very mislead and/or misleading.

ABX is a kind of DBT. There are many other kinds of DBTs that can be used
for audio tests. There are also other test procedures for controlling
listener bias that aren't even DBTs.

For example, there is another kind of DBT called ABC/hr which is also
widely used in audio.

Furthermore, there is a kind of DBT called "ABX" that is used in the study
of ear problems, linguistsics and intelligibility of speech that is
signficiantly different from the test called ABX in the realm of audio.

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:MocJf.78293$_D1.10943@trnddc03...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:sPxIf.33589$Eq.17607@trnddc02...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Karl Uppiano wrote :

wrote in message
oups.com...
Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is
to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the
audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.


They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.


They do an even worse job of teaching grammar, obviously.

Ha ha! I was wondering if you were going to take that bait. That was a
colloquialism; nothing more. Since you seem to have understood the
sentence, it got the job done. But I will agree with you that they do a
lousy job of teaching grammar as well.

Nevertheless, your complete rejection of ABX would surprise anyone with
much scientific training. It is used anywhere scientists and
technologists want to reduce the amount of human bias and placebo effect
from their research. The pharmaceutical industry uses it, the cosmetic
industry uses it, the audio industry uses it. The truth takes a beating
whenever there is an agenda to be sold. It is really hard for people to
be unbiased. ABX is an attempt to reduce the built-in bias. Like
everything else man-made, it isn't perfect, but it is a useful tool. And
it is so effective on audio snake oil, it really ****es people off.

It would help if you realized the difference between ABX and DBT's in
general.

In my research I see the terms ABX and DBT used interchangeably, often
written out as "ABX/DBT". ABX and DBT are both methodologies intended for
removing bias and placebo effects. Depending upon the problem being
solved, the exact methodologies may differ. I would not necessarily design
exactly the same test for comparing color variations or drug efficacy but
the goal is the same.

ABX and DBT are not interchangeable. Do more research to understand the
two. ABX is a sub-set of DBT testing.

DBT testing refers to is a test where neither the participant nor the
proctor know which variable is active at the time it is active. Choices are
made, results or ratings are recorded....and later the data is matched to
the proper variables under test.

ABX is a specific listening protocol where the participant is asked to
listen to A, listen to B, listen to X, compare X to A or B, as needed, and
then "identify" whether X is "A" or "B". It is a test of a single
listener's sensitivity to the variables A and B. It is double-blind, so it
is a DBT.

Harry Lavo wrote:

ABX and DBT are not interchangeable. Do more research to understand the
two. ABX is a sub-set of DBT testing.

DBT testing refers to is a test where neither the participant nor the
proctor know which variable is active at the time it is active. Choices are
made, results or ratings are recorded....and later the data is matched to
the proper variables under test.

ABX is a specific listening protocol where the participant is asked to
listen to A, listen to B, listen to X, compare X to A or B, as needed, and
then "identify" whether X is "A" or "B". It is a test of a single
listener's sensitivity to the variables A and B. It is double-blind, so it
is a DBT.

Does it have to be? Granted ABX *should* be advinistered in a double
blind manner to get scientificly valid results, but is it commonly
assumed that ABX implies double blind? You can certainly do an ABX
single blind, or sighted for that matter.

Just curious.

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

ABX and DBT are not interchangeable. Do more research to understand the
two. ABX is a sub-set of DBT testing.

DBT testing refers to is a test where neither the participant nor the
proctor know which variable is active at the time it is active. Choices
are made, results or ratings are recorded....and later the data is
matched to the proper variables under test.

ABX is a specific listening protocol where the participant is asked to
listen to A, listen to B, listen to X, compare X to A or B, as needed,
and then "identify" whether X is "A" or "B". It is a test of a single
listener's sensitivity to the variables A and B. It is double-blind, so
it is a DBT.

Does it have to be? Granted ABX *should* be advinistered in a double
blind manner to get scientificly valid results, but is it commonly assumed
that ABX implies double blind? You can certainly do an ABX single blind,
or sighted for that matter.


It can be done single blind, but with the possibility of communication
between participant and proctor that implies.

Sighted would be useless, since it is an identification test and sighted you
would be able to see selector switch, lights etc indicating what choice had
been made.

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message
...

You can certainly do an ABX single blind,
or sighted for that matter.

It can be done single blind, but with the possibility of communication
between participant and proctor that implies.

Sighted would be useless...

Not if you're trying to determine which one looks better. (c:

//Walt

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On 16 Feb 2006 18:41:34 -0800, wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton puked out :

On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800, wrote:

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio industry
uses, because it works.

If by the "entire audio industry" you mean your fat faggot friend
KKKrueger's PC audio site, then you're right. If you're implying
anything else, then you're the stupid drunk ****head everyone knows you
to be.

Try telling that to Sean Olive, you moron.

Hey hey now. No need for insults, you drunken bitch. You mean Sean
Olive, the ****ing ignorant pig from Harman Intl? Don't make me LAUGH,
you stupid limey ****wad! To begin with, he's a KKKrueger Klone, who
actively promotes KKKrueger's ABX agenda on the usenet audio
newsgroups. That already kills his credibility right there. Secondly,
Harman Kardon is a MID-FI audio company that produces PURE **** these
days; ie. home theatre junk. So in fact, you just gave people a
brilliant reason NOT to buy to your ABX propaganda, NOT to base
anything on the ABX myth. Name just FIVE true high end companies (which
means audio that has a chance of sounding GOOD), that use ABX tests in
their R&D phase. How about you start with the components in YOUR
system, you lying ****? Did your KRELL amp or electrostats rely on ABX
tests? Did you buy your high end gear after taking ABX tests, or you
just think everyone else should, you ****ing drunk hypocrite?

Let's see how fast it takes you to wriggle out of the questions I just
asked....


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Walt" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

ABX and DBT are not interchangeable. Do more research
to understand the two. ABX is a sub-set of DBT testing.

DBT testing refers to is a test where neither the
participant nor the proctor know which variable is
active at the time it is active. Choices are made,
results or ratings are recorded....and later the data is
matched to the proper variables under test. ABX is a specific listening
protocol where the
participant is asked to listen to A, listen to B, listen
to X, compare X to A or B, as needed, and then
"identify" whether X is "A" or "B". It is a test of a
single listener's sensitivity to the variables A and B. It is
double-blind, so it is a DBT.

Does it have to be? Granted ABX *should* be advinistered
in a double blind manner to get scientificly valid
results, but is it commonly assumed that ABX implies
double blind? You can certainly do an ABX single blind,
or sighted for that matter.

There is a formal reference that states what an audio ABX test is. It's
Clark's JAES paper. My recollection is that in that paper it is clearly
stated that an audio ABX test is a DBT.

If the ABX comparison technique is done single-blind, then that should be
clearly stated. Single blind tests are mostly just defective DBTs.

"Walt" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message
...

You can certainly do an ABX single blind,
or sighted for that matter.

It can be done single blind, but with the possibility of
communication between participant and proctor that
implies. Sighted would be useless...

Not if you're trying to determine which one looks better.
(c:

What sighted tests generally net out to be is evaluations of the general
mental state of the listener. Sort of like a public opinion survey with a
pseudo-scientific wash.

Most sighted evaulations are done without level matching and time-synching .
Now we're talking triple-bogus.

Which they do in whatever way they think will make the
most money.

Welcome to capitalism, ;-)

That is what a capitalist society is all
about, surely you realise that?

Yup.

But, just because its capitalism doesn't make it good or right. If
capitalism was perfect, there would be no reason to have trade laws.

As an economist friend of mine often has to point out, a free economic
system allows people to express preferences. But economics does not tell
them what preferences they ought to have.

wote :

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Feb 2006 18:41:34 -0800, wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton puked out :

On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800, wrote:

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio industry
uses, because it works.

If by the "entire audio industry" you mean your fat faggot friend
KKKrueger's PC audio site, then you're right. If you're implying
anything else, then you're the stupid drunk ****head everyone knows you
to be.

Try telling that to Sean Olive, you moron.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

This is an individual ) that obviously has
some serious self-esteem issues.

I was bottle-fed as a baby.

Pointless ranting that rarely addresses the topic,
only attacks the poster of his choice.

I try not to discriminate.

This thread will also quickly degenerate into a
constant string of venomous posts.

Newsflash: It already HAS, you gormless ****. Of course, you didn't
seem to mind stalking me and relentlessly attacking ME in my thread,
did you, you ****ing hypocrite? Now, when I do the same in one of YOUR
threads, you whine and moan about it like the whimpering bitch that you
are. (SLAP!) Shut the **** UP, you ignorant bitch.

wrote in message
ups.com

That already kills his credibility right there. Secondly,
Harman Kardon is a MID-FI audio company that produces
PURE **** these days; ie. home theatre junk. So in fact,
you just gave people a brilliant reason NOT to buy to
your ABX propaganda, NOT to base anything on the ABX
myth.

Actually, Harmon is one of the very largest mainly audio companies in the
world, if not the largest. They are deep into professional audio as well.
For example, it's maybe even a little hard to buy a recording that hasn't
been touched by Harmon equipment.

Name just FIVE true high end companies (which means
audio that has a chance of sounding GOOD), that use ABX
tests in their R&D phase.

This would be an example of criterial biasing.

A "High end" brand image is hardly any kind of an unique indicator of good
sound.

If fact some of the worst sounding crap I've ever heard, I at HE2005. For
openers there were the Bosendorfer speakers, followed by all those crazy
SETs. Not that there wasn't any good-sounding tube equipment there - the
Manley room sounded pretty good.

wrote in message
ups.com

Newsflash: It already HAS, you gormless ****. Of course,
you didn't seem to mind stalking me and relentlessly
attacking ME in my thread, did you, you ****ing
hypocrite? Now, when I do the same in one of YOUR
threads, you whine and moan about it like the whimpering
bitch that you are. (SLAP!) Shut the **** UP, you
ignorant bitch.

Why can't Ladbury just admit that he got nailed and let the rest of us get
on with our lives? Why does he have to wail so long, so loud about his
obvious pain?

Arny Krueger wrote :

wrote in message
ups.com

Newsflash: It already HAS, you gormless ****. Of course,
you didn't seem to mind stalking me and relentlessly
attacking ME in my thread, did you, you ****ing
hypocrite? Now, when I do the same in one of YOUR
threads, you whine and moan about it like the whimpering
bitch that you are. (SLAP!) Shut the **** UP, you
ignorant bitch.

Why can't Ladbury just admit that he got nailed and let the rest of us get
on with our lives?

ROTFLMAO!! "Nailed"?? Nailed HOW, exactly? All I remember was saying
that fuses are audible, 325 messages and hundreds of personal attacks
later, not YOU or a SINGLE on of your ****witted ignorant fag friends
ever came back with a SINGLE shred of evidence that proved otherwise.
No one even TRIED to prove me wrong.

Krueger, you fat ****ing nazi ****. I don't think you could ever say
something that wasn't a blatant lie, if someone put a gun to your head.
Hell, you're so ****ing pathetic, you would probably want them to pull
the trigger and end your sorry life.

"Get on with our lives"?? Mother**** is THAT ever funny! WHAT life?!
Google shows EXACTLY where you've been and what you've been doing for
the last TEN YEARS. And that is that you were right there on your fat
ass, trolling people on audio newsgroups for 10 years straight. Day in,
day out, to the tune of dozens of posts per day. Witness the fact that
I saw a response from you within 2 minutes of my posting the message
you're replying to! Hell, I'm probably the most exciting thing that's
happened to your sad sorry lives in years. Otherwise, why in the holy
**** are you responding to me?????

KKKrueger: "Uh... duh......umm......"

Arny Krueger latest lies :

wrote in message
ups.com

That already kills his credibility right there. Secondly,
Harman Kardon is a MID-FI audio company that produces
PURE **** these days; ie. home theatre junk. So in fact,
you just gave people a brilliant reason NOT to buy to
your ABX propaganda, NOT to base anything on the ABX
myth.

Actually, Harmon is one of the very largest mainly audio companies in the
world, if not the largest. They are deep into professional audio as well.
For example, it's maybe even a little hard to buy a recording that hasn't
been touched by Harmon equipment.

Thank you for showing you can never respond with anything relevant in
an argument, you ignorant twit. "One of the very largest mainly audio
companies" would support MY argument that Harman Kardon is produces
MID-FI audio; so does your claim about its pro gear, which is also not
in the same class as high end audio. I wonder how your son Nate felt
about you sitting on your fat ass posting inane bull**** like this to
people, while they were burying his little body in the cold dirt? How
sick would you rate yourself on a scale of 1 to 10, Kreuger?

I'm interested to see how it compares to how others rate you, being
that you are known as the most hated troll on the newsgroups.

Name just FIVE true high end companies (which means
audio that has a chance of sounding GOOD), that use ABX
tests in their R&D phase.

This would be an example of criterial biasing.

A "High end" brand image is hardly any kind of an unique indicator of good
sound.

First of all, you wouldn't know what "good sound is", if it ****ed in
your fat German face (not that you wouldn't get off on that, boy
lover). So once again, your words have no value. Secondly, no matter
what anyone thinks of any one high end product, the goal of high end
always remains consistent: to produce high quality reproduction of
music. That is definitely NOT the goal of mid-fi audio, including the
pro segment of the market. Therefore, I asked STEWART PINKERTON, and
not YOU you nazi ****, that FIVE high end companies be named that
utilize ABX tests. So far, the silence on that one is deafening. Hell,
given your pathetic response about Harman and that you're an anti-high
end audio extremist nutcase, you probably don't even know the names of
5 high end audio companies PERIOD.

So I've made my point. ABX is as much a JOKE as you are, KKKreuger.


If fact some of the worst sounding crap I've ever heard, I at HE2005.

I'm quite sure that none of it would even TOUCH your stereo system, for
"worst sounding crap".

Anyone who wants a hifi system that sounds as ****ty as Kruegers,
please pick your components carefully by the amount of ABX tests they
had, and whatever you do, DON'T EVER LISTEN TO THEM BEFORE BUYING!!
That would be stupid, according to the ignorant technophile ****tards
that inhabit these newsgroups.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Why can't Ladbury just admit that he got nailed and let the rest of us get
on with our lives?

You're not any relation to Justin Kruger, by any chance are you?

Anyway, his paper explains:

http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html


Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this
overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in
these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach
erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their
incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the
bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly
overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be
in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in
metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.
Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing
their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of
their abilities.

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Why can't Ladbury just admit that he got nailed and let
the rest of us get on with our lives?

You're not any relation to Justin Kruger, by any chance
are you?

No, Krueger/Kruger/Kreuger is a very common Germanic name. Translates into
English as "Potter", if you catch my drift.

Walt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Why can't Ladbury just admit that he got nailed and let the rest of us get
on with our lives?

You're not any relation to Justin Kruger, by any chance are you?

Anyway, his paper explains:

http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html


Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this
overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in
these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach
erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their
incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the
bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly
overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be
in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in
metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.
Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing
their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of
their abilities.

//Walt

Interesting read Walt, I got about half way through the principle
article,
and started trying to follow the footnote links to get a better grasp
on the
focus.It's a concept that fits some of the recent activity well.
Good stuff.

On 16 Feb 2006 19:07:14 -0800, wrote:

If you think vinyl sounds better than CD, fine.

There's no "think" about it. It's a FACT that LPs are more accurate to
the sound of music, than CDs ever were. Those who know anything about
audio, know that already, and have good turntable setups. You no doubt
have **** on stick for a CD player, and that's all. You've no doubt
never actually HEARD a decent turntable in your life. My $50 turntable
could outperform the best cd player you,ve ever owned.

My $1500 vinyl rig, carefully tuned and tweaked to its maximum
performance, fails to sound more realistic than any CD player I have
owned. Same goes for the $75,000 Rockport Sirius III, set up by Andy
Payor himself.

Please take your braindead and baseless assertions to some religious
forum rather than an audio newgroup.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Feb 2006 19:07:14 -0800, wrote:

If you think vinyl sounds better than CD, fine.

There's no "think" about it. It's a FACT that LPs are more accurate to
the sound of music, than CDs ever were.

My $1500 vinyl rig, carefully tuned and tweaked to its maximum
performance, fails to sound more realistic than any CD player I have
owned. Same goes for the $75,000 Rockport Sirius III, set up by Andy
Payor himself.

I own several dozen recordings on both vinyl and CD. In many cases, I
like the sound of the vinyl better. I disagree that it's more accurate,
but sometimes "pleasant" is preferable to "accurate".


//Walt

Walt wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Feb 2006 19:07:14 -0800, wrote:

If you think vinyl sounds better than CD, fine.

There's no "think" about it. It's a FACT that LPs are more accurate to
the sound of music, than CDs ever were.

My $1500 vinyl rig, carefully tuned and tweaked to its maximum
performance, fails to sound more realistic than any CD player I have
owned. Same goes for the $75,000 Rockport Sirius III, set up by Andy
Payor himself.

I own several dozen recordings on both vinyl and CD. In many cases, I
like the sound of the vinyl better. I disagree that it's more accurate,
but sometimes "pleasant" is preferable to "accurate".


//Walt

Would you attribute the "pleasantness" to recording technique?
I have no experience at vinyl recording other than looking
at archive photos and articles about the process.
I found one interesting one on the history of the Mercury label
and the method used to do the some of the recordings.
I have found that doing live digital recording that the audience
always leaves an artifact in the work, a cough,sneeze,child,etc.
Live recordings I've experienced on vinyl rarely have much
background clutter.I think digital has the potential to be far
too accurate in documenting an event.
Quiet passage, door opens, muffled sneeze, air handler comes on,
violinists chair creaks, too much information available to
the microphones with the increased depth of noise floor.

wrote:
Walt wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Feb 2006 19:07:14 -0800, wrote:


If you think vinyl sounds better than CD, fine.

There's no "think" about it. It's a FACT that LPs are more accurate to
the sound of music, than CDs ever were.

My $1500 vinyl rig, carefully tuned and tweaked to its maximum
performance, fails to sound more realistic than any CD player I have
owned. Same goes for the $75,000 Rockport Sirius III, set up by Andy
Payor himself.

I own several dozen recordings on both vinyl and CD. In many cases, I
like the sound of the vinyl better. I disagree that it's more accurate,
but sometimes "pleasant" is preferable to "accurate".

Would you attribute the "pleasantness" to recording technique?

No, at least not where I'm comparing the same recording on vinyl and CD.
It's the *same* recording. I'd probably attribute it to the
mastering.

OF course, there's the fact that some of these recordings are lifetime
favorites that I've listened to over and over again for 30+ years and
I've come to expect it to sound a certain way. If the CD sounds
different then I'm not quite listening to my favorite record anymore.
"Hey, who took that gelatenous melange of sound and separated it into
distinct instruments?" (c:

Note that the vinyl's not always better, just sometimes.

I have no experience at vinyl recording other than looking
at archive photos and articles about the process.

Few people do. Back in the day, recording engineers laid their work
onto analog tape and took it to a special mastering engineer to do the
prep work for cutting to vinyl. Mastering was a black art. Still is.

//Walt

Arny Krueger a écrit :

wrote in message
oups.com

This from a guy who accused the editor of Stereophile,
reputed widely to be a super nice guy,

Unlike you Ladbury, I've actually met the man.

Prove it, you fat lying sack of ****. No, I mean prove that *I* never
met the man, you dumb fat lying sack of ****.


Trust me, it was one of the more disappointing non-occasions of my life.

'nuff said.

Oh I believe you. This is one of those rare moments when you've typed
something that isn't actually a complete total ****ing lie. Because I
know you're referring to the so-called "Great Debate", where he
humiliated you in front of the high end industry. After humiliating you
on the newsgroups (though I admit you do a splendid job of this
yourself, every single day of your life), Atkinson then humiliated you
before the entire high end audio community. So now you're a
laughingstock in both the virtual world, and the real world.How does it
feel to be a do-nothing, know-nothing, fat old German loser, Mr.
Krooger?

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com
mc a écrit :

wrote in message
ups.com...

You wouldn't know a logical debate if it bit you in the
ass, you stupid drunk limey piece of ****.

Is that supposed to be a specimen of logical debate?

Shut up, Jr. Needless to say, there's no such thing as a
"logical debate" with you ****ing morons. It's always
nothing more than a ****ing contest.

Says Ladbury while he ****es all over Usenet. :-(

Open your mouth and say "aaaahhhhhhh.....".... Geez, you look like
you're enjoying this a little too much, you fat nazi pervert...

Walt wrote:
wrote:
Walt wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Feb 2006 19:07:14 -0800, wrote:


If you think vinyl sounds better than CD, fine.

There's no "think" about it. It's a FACT that LPs are more accurate to
the sound of music, than CDs ever were.

My $1500 vinyl rig, carefully tuned and tweaked to its maximum
performance, fails to sound more realistic than any CD player I have
owned. Same goes for the $75,000 Rockport Sirius III, set up by Andy
Payor himself.

I own several dozen recordings on both vinyl and CD. In many cases, I
like the sound of the vinyl better. I disagree that it's more accurate,
but sometimes "pleasant" is preferable to "accurate".

Would you attribute the "pleasantness" to recording technique?

No, at least not where I'm comparing the same recording on vinyl and CD.
It's the *same* recording. I'd probably attribute it to the
mastering.

OF course, there's the fact that some of these recordings are lifetime
favorites that I've listened to over and over again for 30+ years and
I've come to expect it to sound a certain way. If the CD sounds
different then I'm not quite listening to my favorite record anymore.
"Hey, who took that gelatenous melange of sound and separated it into
distinct instruments?" (c:

Note that the vinyl's not always better, just sometimes.

I have no experience at vinyl recording other than looking
at archive photos and articles about the process.

Few people do. Back in the day, recording engineers laid their work
onto analog tape and took it to a special mastering engineer to do the
prep work for cutting to vinyl. Mastering was a black art. Still is.

//Walt

Truly amazing what they accomplished with the physical limitations
of the material. I was raised on the music of my parents, Como,
Sinatra, Dino,those Firestone collections, musicals like Oklahoma,
west Side Story, Porgy and Bess,classicalo such as Edvard Grieg,
Rachmaninov,Berlioz, and an uncles extensive jazz collection.
I do understand what you mean about how things have changed
when a piece is transended to digital from the analog originals.

wrote:
wote :

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Feb 2006 18:41:34 -0800, wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton puked out :

On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800, wrote:

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio industry
uses, because it works.

If by the "entire audio industry" you mean your fat faggot friend
KKKrueger's PC audio site, then you're right. If you're implying
anything else, then you're the stupid drunk ****head everyone knows you
to be.

Try telling that to Sean Olive, you moron.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

This is an individual ) that obviously has
some serious self-esteem issues.

I was bottle-fed as a baby.

Pointless ranting that rarely addresses the topic,
only attacks the poster of his choice.

I try not to discriminate.

This thread will also quickly degenerate into a
constant string of venomous posts.

Newsflash: It already HAS, you gormless ****. Of course, you didn't
seem to mind stalking me and relentlessly attacking ME in my thread,
did you, you ****ing hypocrite? Now, when I do the same in one of YOUR
threads, you whine and moan about it like the whimpering bitch that you
are. (SLAP!) Shut the **** UP, you ignorant bitch.

1. It's not my thread, this is a public discussion.
2 Let me offer a way for you to save some money on your next
vehicle:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30431
You may have to have it imported.

Stewart Pinkerton puked this out:

On 16 Feb 2006 19:07:14 -0800, wrote:

If you think vinyl sounds better than CD, fine.

There's no "think" about it. It's a FACT that LPs are more accurate to
the sound of music, than CDs ever were. Those who know anything about
audio, know that already, and have good turntable setups. You no doubt
have **** on stick for a CD player, and that's all. You've no doubt
never actually HEARD a decent turntable in your life. My $50 turntable
could outperform the best cd player you,ve ever owned.

My $1500 vinyl rig, carefully tuned and tweaked to its maximum
performance, fails to sound more realistic than any CD player I have
owned.

Given the hearing problems you've developed from being a) an old geezer
and b) an infamous DRUNKEN old geezer, I wouldn't be surprised if a
****ing turbine engine sounds no more realistic to you than your CD
player, belting out Metallica tunes. I'm sorry you don't realize how
irrelevant you and your opinions about audio are. More interesting is
the fact that you paid $1500 for a tt that is outperformed by a $150 cd
player. Economics is not your strong suit, is it. I think you should
stick to what you know best, Punkerton: puking into a bucket all
morning.


Same goes for the $75,000 Rockport Sirius III, set up by Andy
Payor himself.

So now you expect us to believe you paid $75,000 for a turntable that
still doesn't sound better than a $150 cd player. Was this written
before or AFTER your usual drunken binge? I'm just trying to get a
sense of how drunk you have to be to write such ****ing nonsense.


Please take your braindead and baseless assertions to some religious
forum rather than an audio newgroup.

ROTFLMFAO!!! What the **** are you talking about? This IS a "religous
forum"!! Why do you think I've been making fun of you dumb ****ing
zealots for this long? Your "everything sounds the same" audio religion
is as much a crock of **** as Christianity, Scientology, Moonyism, or
any other wacked out religious belief system. Just because you're too
ignorant and absorbed by your audio cult to realize that, doesn't stop
me from laughing at you.

Can't wait for you to say something funny again, little drunkie boy!
LOL!

Did you buy a $100,000 Audio Note Ongaku amp, and find that it was no
better than your Radio Shack sqwak box? ROTFLMFAO!!!! That must have
been a learning experience, eh!!

Drunken fool.

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering | & I Don't Know **** About Either

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On 15 Feb 2006 09:31:28 -0800,

[drivelectomy]

Thanks for proving the point.

Ladbury has long since gone off the deep end with his irrational ranting.

Not to mention posting through a hijacked server in Korea.
Yet another hostile script kiddie, *yawn*.


Francois.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Walt wrote:
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html


Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this
overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in
these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach
erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their
incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the
bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly
overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be
in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in
metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.
Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing
their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of
their abilities.

It's a concept that fits some of the recent activity well.

Also explains politicians behaviour.

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Walt wrote:
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html


Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this
overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in
these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach
erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their
incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the
bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly
overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be
in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in
metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.
Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing
their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of
their abilities.

It's a concept that fits some of the recent activity well.

Also explains politicians behaviour.

MrT.

I've observed that politicians are also bi-polar.
What they have opposed one election cycle, they endorse in a later one.
If you find published quotes, you're taking the issue out of context.
If you have video footage, it never happened.
Caution: Spin may occur without prior warning :-)

"mc" wrote in message
...
As an economist friend of mine often has to point out, a free economic
system allows people to express preferences. But economics does not tell
them what preferences they ought to have.

Your friend is silly then. The whole point of having freedom of choice is to
choose *your own* preference, no matter how stupid it is.
And the whole purpose of consumer type magazines, is to tell people what
preferences they ought to have.
Then we have governments to mandate what preferences we get to choose from.

MrT.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:MocJf.78293$_D1.10943@trnddc03

In my research I see the terms ABX and DBT used
interchangeably, often written out as "ABX/DBT".

Anybody who equates ABX and DBT must be either speaking at a very high
level or is very mislead and/or misleading.

ABX is a kind of DBT. There are many other kinds of DBTs that can be used
for audio tests. There are also other test procedures for controlling
listener bias that aren't even DBTs.

For example, there is another kind of DBT called ABC/hr which is also
widely used in audio.

Furthermore, there is a kind of DBT called "ABX" that is used in the study
of ear problems, linguistsics and intelligibility of speech that is
signficiantly different from the test called ABX in the realm of audio.

Actually, I was talking at a very high level, since I realize that the
details of testing methodologies are often specifically tailored to the
phenomenon under test. The thing that seems strange to me is the religious
zeal that seems to be associated with implementation details in this field.

Mr.T wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
I guess that maturity in the understanding of how audio works in the 21st
century includes understanding that getting an amp that makes you happy
should not and often is not an unusual occasion.

It is for the hi-end brigade. Even an amp they are happy with today, is
bound to sound inferior soon enough to require upgrading.


In a way, magazines like Stereophile try to make people believe that
getting an amp that makes you happy should be and is an unusual
occasion.

How many magazines would they sell if they just said, "we can't tell the
difference"?


When the audible differences are less than what *anybody* can hear, then
there is no logical reason for preference based on sound quality.

Who said anything about "logical"?


Obviously
more important to many than technical perfection.

There is no such thing as manifest technical perfection.
Even the two channels of a stereo amp measure differently in ways that is
statistically significant.

Of course, but you know what I meant.


But, just because its capitalism doesn't make it good or right.

If capitalism was perfect, there would be no reason to have trade laws.

Agreed. I'd love to see a few of the hi-end dealers claims tested in court
:-)
But the people gullible enough to believe the crap in the first place, are
not often prepared to admit they were wrong.
The posters here are proof of that :-)

MrT.

Two imbeciles having a contest to see which is more ignorant than the
other. ****ing classic techno-beanie twaddle.

Mr.T wote:

But the people gullible enough to believe the crap in the first place, are
not often prepared to admit they were wrong.
The posters here are proof of that :-)

MrT.

I hope you're referring to yourself(ves), you dumb hypocrite. You,
KKKrueger and the other technophile retards who's ass you kiss daily,
are all gullible enough to believe the crap you post about all audio
sounding the same. Someone who actually knows something valid about
audio comes along, tells you that fuses are audible, you all **** in
your ****ing pants with hysteria, like your security blankets all got
yanked out from under ya, you say its all bull****, it couldnt be true,
when I tell you what I heard after testing you don't believe it, when I
ask for proof of your counter-claims you all shut the **** up mighty
quick and pretend I never said anything, when I ask if you've done the
same tests you all said you were too stupid to figure out how to do the
same test, then instead of admitting you were all WRONG about
questioning my knowledge regarding fuses, you prove that you're not
prepared to admit you were all WRONG. Which makes you a dumb hypocrite.
But didn't we already establish that at the start?

In 10 years of trolling audio newsgroups, how many times do you figure
your fat nazi anti-audio boy-loving friend, Arny Krueger, has admitted
being wrong? I'll give you a hint: its lower than your IQ.

In article .com,
wrote:


I hope you're referring to yourself(ves), you dumb hypocrite. You,
KKKrueger and the other technophile retards who's ass you kiss daily,
are all gullible enough to believe the crap you post about all audio
sounding the same. Someone who actually knows something valid about
audio comes along, tells you that fuses are audible, you all **** in
your ****ing pants with hysteria, like your security blankets all got
yanked out from under ya, you say its all bull****, it couldnt be true,
when I tell you what I heard after testing you don't believe it, when I
ask for proof of your counter-claims you all shut the **** up mighty
quick and pretend I never said anything, when I ask if you've done the
same tests you all said you were too stupid to figure out how to do the
same test, then instead of admitting you were all WRONG about
questioning my knowledge regarding fuses, you prove that you're not
prepared to admit you were all WRONG. Which makes you a dumb hypocrite.
But didn't we already establish that at the start?

In 10 years of trolling audio newsgroups, how many times do you figure
your fat nazi anti-audio boy-loving friend, Arny Krueger, has admitted
being wrong? I'll give you a hint: its lower than your IQ.


What have your tests concluded Mr. Ladbury?

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

wrote in message
oups.com...
Two imbeciles having a contest to see which is more ignorant than the
other.

You have that title well and truly sown up already.

MrT.

On 17 Feb 2006 08:45:19 -0800, wrote:


Arny Krueger latest lies :

wrote in message
ups.com

That already kills his credibility right there. Secondly,
Harman Kardon is a MID-FI audio company that produces
PURE **** these days; ie. home theatre junk. So in fact,
you just gave people a brilliant reason NOT to buy to
your ABX propaganda, NOT to base anything on the ABX
myth.

Actually, Harmon is one of the very largest mainly audio companies in the
world, if not the largest. They are deep into professional audio as well.
For example, it's maybe even a little hard to buy a recording that hasn't
been touched by Harmon equipment.

Thank you for showing you can never respond with anything relevant in
an argument, you ignorant twit. "One of the very largest mainly audio
companies" would support MY argument that Harman Kardon is produces
MID-FI audio; so does your claim about its pro gear, which is also not
in the same class as high end audio.

High end audio plays recordings *made* on pro-audio gear, you moron.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 17 Feb 2006 08:09:30 -0800, wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On 16 Feb 2006 18:41:34 -0800, wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton puked out :

On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800, wrote:

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio industry
uses, because it works.

If by the "entire audio industry" you mean your fat faggot friend
KKKrueger's PC audio site, then you're right. If you're implying
anything else, then you're the stupid drunk ****head everyone knows you
to be.

Try telling that to Sean Olive, you moron.

Hey hey now. No need for insults, you drunken bitch. You mean Sean
Olive, the ****ing ignorant pig from Harman Intl? Don't make me LAUGH,
you stupid limey ****wad! To begin with, he's a KKKrueger Klone, who
actively promotes KKKrueger's ABX agenda on the usenet audio
newsgroups. That already kills his credibility right there.

Actually, he promotes it because it works, nothing to do with Arny oer
se.

Secondly,
Harman Kardon is a MID-FI audio company that produces PURE **** these
days; ie. home theatre junk.

You really are an ignorant clown, aren't you? Are you unaware that
Mark Levinson and Revel are Harman brands?

So in fact, you just gave people a
brilliant reason NOT to buy to your ABX propaganda, NOT to base
anything on the ABX myth. Name just FIVE true high end companies (which
means audio that has a chance of sounding GOOD), that use ABX tests in
their R&D phase.

Well, lessee, obviously there's Revel and Mark Levinson, also B&W, KEF
and B&O. Now, if you think that B&O don't produce some truly high-end
products, that just proves once again that you know sod all about
top-class audio.

How about you start with the components in YOUR
system, you lying ****? Did your KRELL amp or electrostats rely on ABX
tests?

I don't use electrostats, you ignorant clown.

And the Krell certainly was chosen after extensive ABX testing.

Did you buy your high end gear after taking ABX tests, or you
just think everyone else should, you ****ing drunk hypocrite?

Both.

Let's see how fast it takes you to wriggle out of the questions I just
asked....

Let's see how long it takes you to buy a clue on ebay........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering